moniker Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Why was Ramdin banned ? If that was against spirit of the game, so was this and this too deserves a ban. Also, it was not a small nick. It was a very big edge. Ramdin was banned because he was trying to fool the umpire. Broad has not been banned because he was waiting for the umpire to make a foolish decision. As much as I dislike Broad, he shouldn't face any infraction as he wasn't in any way responsible for influencing the umpire's decision as how Ramdin was. It's like saying that the bystander who watches a murder being committed is as much responsible for the murder as the murderer himself.
bulbul Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 To people who are still in doubt :giggle: Toss England, who chose to bat Series England led the 5-match series 1-0 Test debut AC Agar (Australia) Player of the match JM Anderson (England) Umpires Aleem Dar (Pakistan) and HDPK Dharmasena (Sri Lanka) TV umpire M Erasmus (South Africa) Match referee RS Madugalle (Sri Lanka) Reserve umpire NA Mallender
bulbul Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 To make things even more clear , umpires need to complain before case goes to Referee.[That's what happened in case of Ramdin] The charge - under article 2.2.11 of the ICC Code of Conduct which relates to "conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game" - was laid by the on-field umpires Steve Davis and Llong, third umpire Tony Hill and fourth umpire Richard Kettleborough. Ramdin had pleaded not guilty and attended a hearing adjudicated by Broad on Monday.
Crookbond Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Feck, bulbul has caught all of us The article in the OP actually means that Chris Broad feels that Stuart didn't do anything against the spirit of the game. It has got nothing to do with any official ICC panel etc. Indiaregulator :bumsmack:
bulbul Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Feck, bulbul has caught all of us The article in the OP actually means that Chris Broad feels that Stuart didn't do anything against the spirit of the game. It has got nothing to do with any official ICC panel etc. Indiaregulator :bumsmack: How difficult for guessing that , when neutral umpires are used referee also neutral only :dontknow:
jalebi_bhai Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Ramdin was banned because he was trying to fool the umpire. Broad has not been banned because he was waiting for the umpire to make a foolish decision. As much as I dislike Broad, he shouldn't face any infraction as he wasn't in any way responsible for influencing the umpire's decision as how Ramdin was. It's like saying that the bystander who watches a murder being committed is as much responsible for the murder as the murderer himself. Horrible analogy.......it's more like Broad committing day-light robbery and Dar being the incompetent security forces refusing to punish him even though everyone knows that Broad did the crime.....a crime going unpunished doesn't make it legal......Dar's poor decision doesn't mean that Broad didn't nick it......he just got away with it......
Haarkarjeetgaye Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 oh man. this is how england ruled the world and India. hilarious country . russel peters shows them their place
Raghav_12 Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Ramdin was banned because he was trying to fool the umpire. Broad has not been banned because he was waiting for the umpire to make a foolish decision. As much as I dislike Broad, he shouldn't face any infraction as he wasn't in any way responsible for influencing the umpire's decision as how Ramdin was. It's like saying that the bystander who watches a murder being committed is as much responsible for the murder as the murderer himself. You sound reasonable still this is tricky. By standing there wasn't he trying to confuse umpire? Also just like thin edges, sometimes bump catch can also feel lclean catchto fielder himself, so they are justified in claiming a catch. It's umpire's responsibility to see whether that was clean or not. Overall there is lack of consistency somewhere.
cowboysfan Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 a batsman knows whether he hit it if its a thin edge or thick edge,so he should only walk if its thick edge-what degree of deviation constitutes a thick edge?
nikred Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Seriously though, how many walkers do we have in world cricket?
msb1991 Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 a batsman knows whether he hit it if its a thin edge or thick edge' date='so he should only walk if its thick edge-what degree of deviation constitutes a thick edge?[/quote'] Exactly.
Raghav_12 Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 What is more likely? A batsman not realizing that he has nicked the ball or a fielder/WK not realizing that catch had bumped before he caught it? For me it is second. There would be very cases where batsman would not know whether he has nicked it or not. But there could be many genuine cases where WK would not realize that ball had bumped.
cowboysfan Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 What is more likely? A batsman not realizing that he has nicked the ball or a fielder/WK not realizing that catch had bumped before he caught it? For me it is second. There would be very cases where batsman would not know whether he has nicked it or not. But there could be many genuine cases where WK would not realize that ball had bumped. i dont agree,every batsman knows if he has hit it with his bat.
Raghav_12 Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 i dont agree' date='every batsman knows if he has hit it with his bat.[/quote'] That's what I said. There is great likelihood of fielder /WK not realizing that it was bump than batsman not realizing that it was nick. So who's fault is more, Ramadin or Broad?
moniker Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 You sound reasonable still this is tricky. By standing there wasn't he trying to confuse umpire? Also just like thin edges' date=' sometimes bump catch can also feel lclean catchto fielder himself, so they are justified in claiming a catch. It's umpire's responsibility to see whether that was clean or not. Overall there is lack of consistency somewhere.[/quote'] It is the fielding side that appeals and puts the pressure on the umpire, the batsman doesn't. The onus is on the fielding side to not to go for a deliberately false appeal. I would say it is a bigger crime to falsely accuse a person for committing robbery than the robbery itself.
G_B_ Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Regardless of the result. I do hope the English media pick up of this "conflict of interest" of a father judging a son. For me the biggest issue was Broad wasting time just before lunch so as to avoid another over being bowled. That was blatant cheating.
cowboysfan Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 That's what I said. There is great likelihood of fielder /WK not realizing that it was bump than batsman not realizing that it was nick. So who's fault is more, Ramadin or Broad? I agree too that sometimes its fielder has no way of knowing ifs it bump catch.
saneindian Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 Wait till we hear how Broad Sr. didn't participate in the deliberations on his son's actions.
indiaregulator Posted July 14, 2013 Author Posted July 14, 2013 Wait till we hear how Broad Sr. didn't participate in the deliberations on his son's actions. Well that would be a bit strange and difficult now that has come out to the Guardian and practically said that he has.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now